Filibuster Reform Is Upon Us

[Direckshun]

dun dun DUNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN

Not really.

Harry Reid is seeking two reforms: kill the filibuster of the motion to proceed, and turn the non-speaking filibuster back into the speaking filibuster.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...0ab3_blog.html

Full speed ahead on filibuster reform?
By Greg Sargent
Posted at 05:04 PM ET, 11/26/2012

On the Senate floor today, Harry Reid offered the clearest confirmation yet that he will move forward with filibuster reform at the start of the new Congress. He confirmed he is proposing to “do away with filibusters on the motion to proceed,” which was already known. He added that under proposed reforms, Senators who want to filibuster will have to “stand up and talk about it.” That means Reid supports the “talking filibuster,” the proposal to force filibustering out into the open — on the theory that this will make it politically more difficult.

There’s some debate over whether the latter proposal is likely to be effective. Jonathan Bernstein has argued that it’s absurd to imagine that Republicans would balk at publicly holding the floor.

That aside, now that there will be a massive spin war over the meaning of reform — Mitch McConnell railed today that Dems are planning a “naked power grab” — it’s worth reiterating that there is a set of actual facts about GOP filibustering and the Dem response to it that shouldn’t get lost in all the false equivalence BS we’re certain to hear:

1) The extent of GOP filibustering is unprecedented. This chart shows that cloture motions (a rough measure of filibustering) suddenly spiked during the Obama years. Yes, they also spiked in 2007-2008, but according to Congressional scholar Norman Ornstein, the vast majority of those filibusters were mounted by Republicans, presumably to block legislation designed to embarrass George W. Bush. (Indeed, the motions to end filibusters during that period were filed mostly by Dems.)

2) The nature of GOP filibustering is unprecedented. Ornstein says this is true in two ways: First, in the extensive blockading of what used to be considered routine Senate business. And second, much of the filibustering is part of a concerted party strategy. “You’re not just looking at filibusters done by rogue senators or factions, like southern Democrats in the 1950s,” says Ornstein. “It’s the first time we’ve had a wide range of filibustering by a whole party.”

3) Filibuster reform would not do away with the minority’s ability to filibuster. The “talking filibuster” reform and the nixing of the filibuster on the motion to proceed would only make it harder to use procedural tactics, under cover of darkness, for the explicit purpose of stalling the Upper Chamber’s business. The minority would still be able to block the will of a simple majority on the vote to end debate. These are not very meaningful restrictions on the “rights” of the minority.

At any rate, now that Reid has made such a vocal push, it’s hard to imagine that Dems won’t move forward on day one of the new session to change the rules with a simple majority vote. Looks like it’s on.

***************************************

UPDATE: It’s also possible that unilateral action on the rules by Democrats to change the filibuster may not happen, if Dems and Republicans reach a deal. As Ornstein emails me:

In 1975, we had the threat of one party action to change the rule, and it led to a bipartisan compromise. That could happen this time, despite the rhetoric — a bipartisan move to eliminate filibusters on the motion to proceed, a few more changes, and in return, a guarantee for the minority on at least some amendments on bills.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by donkhater

Sure, knock yourself out

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/...o_deficit.html

Present another source. That one is a conservative media source.

Find one that doesn't have a political ax to grind.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by patteeu

No, when I say "now", I mean today.

Today it's solvent.

The program is solvent, and pays out 100% of its benefits.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Today it's solvent.

The program is solvent, and pays out 100% of its benefits.

The short-sightedness that you're demonstrating is what gets us into unnecessarily painful fiscal messes. It's long past time to reject your kind of thinking. It's time to either fund the promises we've already made or modify the promises, far enough in advance that people have time to prepare themselves.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by patteeu

The short-sightedness that you're demonstrating is what gets us into unnecessarily painful fiscal messes.

I support a very specific measure that would fund social security for the rest of our and our children's lifetimes.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

I support a very specific measure that would fund social security for the rest of our and our children's lifetimes.

Meanwhile, you go around saying that SS is paid for when it's not.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by patteeu

Meanwhile, you go around saying that SS is paid for when it's not.

It is for the next 20 years.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

It is for the next 20 years.

[donkhater]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Present another source. That one is a conservative media source.

Find one that doesn't have a political ax to grind.

Don't need to. Their data and analysis is consistent with what is happening and I believe it. It's on you to refute it with your 'unbiased' source, if you can find one.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by donkhater

Don't need to. Their data and analysis is consistent with what is happening and I believe it.

That you agree with a biased source means even less.

Can you back your points up with anything that isn't a conservative shill site?

[Calcountry]

Todays stat's, 8/25 threads brought to you by, Direckshun.

Mod's, change the name of the forum to Direckshun's DC.

Needless to say, this place suchs Buchaca.

Bye.

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by Calcountry

Todays stat's, 8/25 threads brought to you by, Direckshun.

Mod's, change the name of the forum to Direckshun's DC.

Needless to say, this place suchs Buchaca.

Bye.

There is an ignore button. It is free to use.

[donkhater]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

That you agree with a biased source means even less.

Can you back your points up with anything that isn't a conservative shill site?

Can you discount it with anything other than a socialist shrill site? What's the difference? I ve read enough over the years about social security and the Ponzi scheme it is and find the column's data and conclusions entirely believable.

You asked for a source to back up my points, knowing full well it would likely be a conservative source then discount it as biased to make yourself sound above the partisan rhetoric and put your hands over your ears like a little girl. Your act is old. You need to change it. You're the DC's version of Wendler.

If you don't like the answer, don't ask the question in the first place.

[whoman69]

Now that McConnell has filibustered his own bill, tell me again how its a useful tool and that Republicans haven't abused it.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by donkhater

Can you discount it with anything other than a socialist shrill site? What's the difference? I ve read enough over the years about social security and the Ponzi scheme it is and find the column's data and conclusions entirely believable.

The difference is that if you asked me to back up a point I'm making by citing a shill site, you're likely to call my argument phony.

That's what's happening here.

There is no credible source that's backing up your argument.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Calcountry

Todays stat's, 8/25 threads brought to you by, Direckshun.

You're focusing too much on the messenger.

Here are the topics I've started recently:

1. unemployment rate
2. hilarious move by mcconnell
3. Fox News' impartiality
4. fiscal cliff megathread
5. huge IMF study on spending cuts vs. tax increases
6. GOP ideology issues
7. UN disabilities treaty vote
8. Israel/Palestine megathread
9. GOP ideology issues again

That's just the past few days.

I'll give you the McConnell thread, as that one was just started for chuckles.

Buf if you don't think these are legitimate issues worthy of discussion, that's on you.